Monday, February 13, 2012  | 32°F 7-Day Forecast

The Eastern Echo

News and nonsense spiced with nerve

Commentary: Tigers' moves dim division title prospects

The last time we saw the Tigers, they were walking off the field in Minnesota after blowing the Central Division over the last two weeks of the season. The heartbreaking failure down the stretch carried over to the questionable off-season changes made by Tigers General Manager Dave Dombrowski.

The first move of the off-season was the unpopular trade of All-Star outfielder Curtis Granderson. The team knew the deal would be met with strong resistance from the fan base, as he was a fan favorite. The team claimed revenue problems necessitated the trade and viewed Granderson, who is due $25 million guaranteed over the next three seasons, as a player who would reduce payroll and bring back considerable talent in a trade.

The Tigers’ payroll problems—they were fifth in baseball with a $115 million in 2009—stem from ill-advised extensions given out after the team’s 2006 World Series appearance. In 2010, oft-injured pitchers Jeremy Bonderman and Nate Robertson will both make eight-figure salaries. Carlos Guillen, who hit .242 with little power last year, will make $13 million this year.

On Dec. 9, Granderson was traded to the New York Yankees as part of a three-team deal that brought the Tigers outfield prospect Austin Jackson, pitchers Max Scherzer, Phil Coke and Daniel Schlereth. They also traded starter Edwin Jackson in the deal as he was due for a respectable raise in arbitration despite his below league average pitching during last year’s second half.

Overall, the trade is not bad for the Tigers. They acquired Scherzer (4.12 ERA, 174 strikeouts in 170 innings), who is the best player in the deal sporting velocity in the high-90s and the ability to sustain it deep into games as well as a hard-breaking slider. The upgrade from Edwin Jackson to Scherzer, who is under the Tigers’ control for five years, will help offset the loss of Granderson. Still, Austin Jackson, 23, will likely never approach the power Granderson has—he was one of four American League outfielders with 30 home runs in 2009—and will strike out with the same frequency (Austin Jackson has struck out at least 100 times each of the last four seasons, all in the minors).

OK, so the Tigers are a team in transition who were forced to bite the bullet and deal their fan favorite in his prime because of money, right? Wrong. After completing the deal Dombrowski signed closer Jose Valverde to a two-year, $14 million contract. The spending didn’t stop there as last weekend outfielder Johnny Damon signed a one-year, $8 million contract, when no other teams were seriously bidding for his services.

So, why then did the Tigers even trade Granderson, 28, in the first place? Even more, the question is why did they essentially give him up so they could pay $15 million to Valverde and Damon? If you’re going to pay millions to an outfielder, you’d much rather have Granderson than Damon, 36. Also, a closer is nonessential for a team like the Tigers that isn’t predicted to contend.

The Tigers traded Granderson and then proceeded to waste the money they “saved” in the process. This leaves the team without its most familiar face, but with an aging roster and little hope of a division title in 2010.


  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Digg this
  • Add to del.icio.us
  • Blogger
  • Comment feed
  • |
  • Print
  • Email
Section: Sports
4 Comments
February 25 at 5:57 AM
by Dan Bumpus

To the author, Nick Shlain: I notice part of the motto of The Echo involves “nonsense”. I assume your piece “Tigers’ Offseason Moves Dim Division Title Prospects” falls under that category. You suggest the Tigers are “not predicted to contend”. To whom are you referring to? The Tigers are being called potential contenders by respected analysts from ESPN’s Jason Stark, to Tim Kurkjian, to Ken Rosenthal and Jon Paul Morosi of Fox Sports, to solid local beat writers like Lynn Henning of the Detroit News. I know your level of experience is rather limited, and I would strongly suggest you do a little more homework before throwing out blanket statements like “a closer is nonessential for a team like the Tigers that is not expected to contend”. Opinion stated as fact is a real credibility killer.

Flag for moderation
February 25 at 9:03 AM
by ij

the curtis trade was never about money, im so tired of authors not doing their research.
they traded two guys under team control for 4 years (ejax neing salary arbitration eligible)
for 4 guys under control for TWENTY TWO years combined. DD said over and over again, they were not dumping salary, (which should be obvious to anyone scratching their heads on the deal since Curtis was affordable), it was about filling holes in the bullpen and getting back players that can help the team contend for the length of Verlanders new contract.

If another player was worth as much as Curtis to the Yanks, of course Tigers would have preferred to keep Grandy….but he was the tempting bait.
Valverde is an upgrade for the closer spot, Damon is a great 1-2 lineup guy. Both are worth the money that Illitch obviously has no problem spending. If Det seriously wanted to dump payroll they wouldnt have extended Verlander with two years left on his contract.

do your homework instead of rehashing other failed journalist’s theories.

Flag for moderation
February 25 at 10:56 AM
by SayWha...?

“The Tigers traded Granderson and then proceeded to waste the money they “saved” in the process. This leaves the team without its most familiar face, but with an aging roster and little hope of a division title in 2010.”

1) With Verlander, Porcello, Scherzer, Sizemore, A-Jax, Avila, Cabrera are all kids (not to mention all the relievers…)

Bonderman, Robertson, Willis, Damon, Everett and possibly even Magglio’s contracts are expiring after 2010- freeing up several spots for younger talent and about $50 million/year to afford the replacements.

So how exactly is the roster “aging”? They just got a heck of a lot younger, and will be even younger next year depending on what they do with those expiring contracts.

2) The central division will be won by a team thats just barely above .500…neither the Sox nor the Twins got much better this offseason, so its anyone’s guess who will prevail. Calling them a non-contender in a division that beats up on the Royals and Indians is being a bit naive imo.

Flag for moderation
February 25 at 12:02 PM
by jsmith_15

Wow….this guy just swung and missed on all accounts.

Flag for moderation

Leave a response

All fields are required.

 Your email address will not be published.
HTML is not allowed.
 How do you spell cookie?
From the Blogs

Today's front page

front page

Upcoming Events
Today's top events
  • No events for this date
Tuesday's top events
  • No events for this date
Wednesday's top events
  • No events for this date
Thursday's top events
  • No events for this date
Friday's top events
  • No events for this date
Follow us
DS